The elliptical underwear argument

“I got finished early, but I’m still going to swim. I don’t think I can swim on an empty stomach though. If I swing by, will you bring a banana out to me?”

“Well, of course,” I replied. “I’ll have to put some pants on though.”

“It hasn’t stopped you before. I saw you take the garbage out in your boxer shorts the other night.”

“I did no such thing! I’m going to prove it. I was wearing pajama pants, and I’m going to wear them again. You’ll see.”

I smugly walked out to the car carrying a banana and smiled cockily. “You see? They are pajama pants that I cut off and turned into shorts.”

With an insouciance burnished by years of having to deal with idiotic behavior, the response was a rather unaffected, “You are standing outside in your boxer shorts.”

“I am not, and I can prove it. Look…I’m wearing boxer shorts underneath them.” Looking back, of course, I realized this was my mistake. I think the syllogism goes:

Major premise: You wear underwear under your clothes

Minor premise: (omitted)

Conclusion: Anything worn over underwear are necessarily not “undergarments.”

I continued my apology, “I made these by taking a pair of pajama pants and cutting them off. They even have a draw string.”

“Really?”

“Yes, really.”

“I see…And then you neatly hemmed the bottom?”

Suddenly nonplussed, I viewed what was clearly a machined hem at the bottom. I looked in vain for the draw string I had just been crowing about. That was the point I realized that — for the second time in my life — I was standing in a public place wearing a t-shirt and boxer shorts. Well, to be fair, this time, I was wearing two pairs of boxer shorts.

I have since conceded that wearing another pair of boxer shorts on top of your boxer shorts does not have any sort of “cancelling affect” on their ontological status as undergarments.

I turned to make a hasty retreat back inside only to walk past a neighbor. I made sure not to catch his eye as I mumbled a hello and thought, “How many more times will this happen?”